Thanks to everyone who read this and are engaging in good faith. Figured it would be easier to address a number of things here/ clarify things here in one post.
On the board makeup: Three independent external directors outnumber two Labs seats, no matter how you cut it. Labs cannot be outvoted by itself. This is the explicit design of this proposal, and designed with this in mind. The concern that this creates a “Labs-centric” body does not hold up mathematically, and I’d ask those raising it to engage with the structure as written rather than the structure as feared.
On sequencing (given retro happening right now): This temp check is a response to what the retro has already found. Phase 1 findings are public and confirm the exact problems this proposal names: accountability gaps, coordination failures, delegate fatigue. We are now in Phase 3 and whatever the next phase calls for, I will be engaging with in good faith while also advocating for a design and direction that I believe is the right course for us to try.
On decentralization: Some responses in this thread invoke decentralization in ways that conflate two very different things: decentralization of the protocol versus decentralization of operational decision-making. These are not the same thing, and conflating them is how this conversation ends up going in circles. Treating operational efficiency as a threat to decentralization misreads what decentralization is actually protecting. If we are serious about ENS succeeding (and perhaps we all have slightly different interpretations of success- mine is broader adoption of ENS names and useful integrations) we have to be willing to make that distinction and stop using one as a shield for the other. The ENS protocol is already decentralized where it matters most- the DAO owns the smart contracts, and no single party can make any changes on the protocol level without putting forth a vote. The temp check does not change that.
Last note: Founder-led companies and founding team representation on boards is normal and necessary. If we agree the problems are real and the direction is right, then let’s focus on getting the design details right in the formal proposal rather than relitigating first principles of basic corporate governance.